JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in criminal complaint no. 272 dated 02.03.2010, under Sections 406/498A/506/120B IPC, titled as Jaswinder Kaur v. Sukhwinder Singh and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 16.02.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.9780 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-4552 of 2012 Contends that petitioner no.1 is father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is wife of petitioner no.2, petitioner no.4 is brother-in-law, and petitioner no.5 is wife of petitioner no.4 of the complainant and that they are having no concern with the matrimonial life of complainant and her husband. Further contends that they are ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial. Notice of motion for 13.3.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to appear before leaned trial Court on the date fixed, i.e., 23.2.2012 and if they so appear and apply for bail, learned trial Court is directed to release them on interim bail subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and released on interim bail. It is further stated by learned counsel for petitioners that even son of petitioner i.e. husband of complainant had surrendered before the trial court on 01.06.2012 and released on regular bail on 06.06.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Gian Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Sarabjit Kaur, Mangal Singh and Nirmal Kaur is accepted and order dated 16.02.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court. 8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------